Regional Foundations for Internationalism in the Ancient Near East: The Case of Canaan Aaron Irvin University of California, Los Angeles Abstract In the early 15 th through 13 th centuries BCE, the world of the Near East, from the Mediterranean to modern day Iran, was linked together in what historians today call the First International Age. Correspondence from that period found at El Amarna in Egypt and other sites in Mesopotamia and Anatolia details the diplomatic and economic exchanges between the “Great Powers” of the time (Babylon, Assyria, Mittani, Hatti, and Egypt), and contains letters from the Egyptian vassal kingdoms in the Levant, known as Canaan. The complex diplomatic interchanges and active economic trade during this period were possible because of the status of Canaan as a series of semi-autonomous vassal states under the Egyptian empire. Canaan acted as the economic center for the entire region, linking the goods and kingdoms of southwest Asia, Africa, and southeastern Europe into a single trading system. Though under the nominal control of Egypt, Canaan served as neutral territory for all the powers, enabling complex political and diplomatic interchange throughout the region. This paper explores the conditions within Canaan that allowed this system of exchange to flourish, and will show that a number of military, political, and cultural factors in Canaan, which were cultivated by the Egyptians, allowed the region to act as an international territory facilitating trade and political interaction between the Great Powers. 1 In the early 15 th through 13 th centuries BCE, the world of the Near East, from the Mediterranean to modern day Iran, was linked together in what historians today call the First International Age. 1 Correspondence from that period found at El Amarna in Egypt and other sites in Mesopotamia and Anatolia details the diplomatic and economic exchanges between the “Great Powers” of the time (Babylon, Assyria, Mittani, Hatti, and Egypt), as well as containing letters from the Egyptian vassal kingdoms in the Levant, known as Canaan. In terms of world history, the Amarna Age constitutes the first significant international society. Even more significant, the Amarna Age presents a vastly different model for international studies than those we are more familiar with, namely the world of Christian Europe, its periods of colonization, and its evolution into our international society today. Additionally, the Amarna Age established a foundation from which the empires of the Iron Age and Classical Period emerged; it set the stage for the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic empires that would emerge in the following centuries, as well as establishing the Levant as a center of trade that would later be exploited by the Phoenician trading empire. As the Amarna Age forms the basis for developments in the Near East during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, this paper seeks to determine the foundations of the Amarna Age. Rather than attempting to analyze the Amarna Age or expand upon previous analysis, I seek to understand how and why such an international system could come about in the first place. The topic of Late Bronze Age diplomacy first garnered attention in 1887 CE with the discovery of the royal archive at El-Amarna, Egypt, the former site of the city of Akhetaten during the reign of Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) and briefly under Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen. These archives were later complemented by the discovery of archives from the same period in Boghazköy, Turkey, site of the Hittite capital of Hattusas, in 1906-07, and from the Syrian town of Ugarit in 1951-57. Additional records were found at the ancient site of Mari in modern day Iraq in 1933-39, referring to a similar period of international relations in the 18 th through 17 th centuries BCE known as the “Mari Age”, and at the ancient site of Ebla in 1975, dating back as far as the 24 th century BCE. Thus, the Amarna records document not a sudden, grand development of international diplomacy in the Near East, but rather the climax of a long tradition of diplomatic contact within the region. What distinguished Amarna among these other diplomatic “Ages” was the scope and complexity involved in the relations between powers. The Amarna correspondence contains letters from kingdoms throughout the Near East, from Cypress and Greece to the Kassite kingdom of Babylon and its vassals in Elam. Each of these powers engaged in political and military alliances, diplomatic marriages and economic trade, as well as in various systems of vassalage and suzerainty, all utilizing a specific diplomatic language and protocol that was universally recognized throughout the region. The entire system 1 I am indebted to Dr. Steven Garfinkle of Western Washington University for his help in writing the original paper as well as in revising the version that was presented May 20 th , 2006, at the UC World History Workshop, and for introducing me to the topic of the Amarna Age in the first place. Special thanks to Dr. Ronald Mellor, Dr. Claudia Rapp, Dr. David Phillips, and Dr. Aaron Burke of UCLA for their advice and critiques of the paper. 2 was maintained by and for the benefit of an elite group of kingdoms, known as the Great Powers, which consisted of Egypt, Babylon, Hatti, Mittani, and Assyria, leading to what can be termed the first international “society”. Martin Wight, in his work Systems of States , describes an international society as a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, [that] form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions. 2 This definition expands on the theoretical framework of an international system, in which “a set of states interacts in such a way that each of them has to take into account the capabilities and possible actions of at least one of the others.” 3 Wight makes a further distinction in stating that a system needs only basic interaction, whereas a society requires cultural interaction and exchange between the players. 4 Thus, the question is: does the Amarna Age fit this description? Clearly, several international systems emerged within Mesopotamia and the greater Near East prior to the Amarna Age, including but not limited to the Ebla Age and Mari Age. Relations between the respective Great Powers were expressed within each correspondence in terms of familial relationships: in the formulaic greeting between the Great Powers, the king of each nation is referred to as “brother”, and the letters contain exhortations for the general well-being of the household. The holdings of each kingdom were described as part of the extended household of each ruler, complete with domestic metaphors, while references to a master-slave relationship between the Great Powers and their vassals were common. 5 The familial terms themselves were both real and metaphorical, since the royal families of the Great Powers intermarried, thus forming political, economic, and cultural contacts between the powers. One letter from Kadashman Enlil in the Amarna collection implies that intermarriage between the royal households was a requirement of diplomatic exchange; the metaphorical relationship of brotherhood between the Great Powers was thus enforced by the reality of intermarriage between the powers. 6 The Amarna letters themselves also refer to the exchange of gods and religious figures between the Great Powers for the well being of all members of the royal households. 7 The term “nation” is not well suited for describing the states that existed at the end of the Bronze Age. For each of the Great Powers, the existence of the state was 2 M. Wight, Systems of States (Leicester: Leicester University Press. 1977), 33, quoted in Rodolfo Ragionieri, “The Amarna Age: An International Society in the Making," in Amarna Diplomacy - The beginnings of international relations, Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, ed . (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000), 43. 3 Ragioneri, 43. 4 Wight, 25, in Ragioneri, 43. 5 Ragionieri, 47. 6 William Moran, ed. and trans., The Amarna Letters (Johns Hopkins University, 2002), EA 3. [Subsequent citations will give the EA number only]. 7 EA, 11; EA, 31; EA 23. 3 focused upon a single individual, the king; consequently, the people, territory, and resources of each of these kingdoms came to be described as an extension of the household of the king. Each kingdom possessed a hierarchical structure, with authority figures existing at various levels as equals (or “brothers”), and the king functioning at the top of this structure as the “head of household”, or paterfamilias . International relations thus took the form of personal correspondence between the paterfamiliae of the kingdoms. No power had any more authority within such a system than any other, and all were expected to abide by the protocols and rules of interaction. This in turn was mediated by the domestic image of the ruler in question. At home, the Egyptian pharaoh held unquestionable authority, as expressed in the language of fatherhood; internationally, he was only one among a group of equals, or “brothers”, and as such he was expected to abide by a set of established standards and was subject to rebuke from the other powers for failing to abide by these standards. 8 Yet, despite the different role and position the pharaoh held in the international and domestic affairs, the two spheres lacked any clear demarcation. If anything, the Amarna correspondence reveals the difficulties that the Great Kings experienced in reconciling their position as master in their own territory and equal among the other powers. The international system thus created a situation where each of the Great Kings was forced to play a role that was inherently contradictory.